Unconstitutionalcare

[CarltonBanks]

Saw the subject line. Bet myself a million bucks I knew who started the thread. Clicking to see confirmed I won. And lost.

Should have just looked next to the subject line where is says who started the thread. Dummy.

 

[YankeeFan]

Well, Palin was ripped for "death panels," and in a roundabout way isn't that what you are talking about?

I guess I'd just say that I don't know what a "Death Panel" is. It sounds like people would be voting to send grandma off to a gas chamber.

That's not going to happen. But, the rationing of health care is going to be a necessity. It's the only way we're not going to bankrupt ourselves to pay for its increasing costs.

Obama already laid out an example (video at the link):

“I don’t think that we can make judgments based on peoples’ spirit,” Obama said. … “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers.“

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/21/video-let-them-eat-painkillers/

The President also is/was under the impression that money can be saved by making sure unnecessary procedures aren't done. Maybe this is somewhat true, but who decides -- a government bean counter?

And, his example was way off, and terribly insulting to doctors (video at link):

[L]et's take the example of something like diabetes, one of --- a disease that's skyrocketing, partly because of obesity, partly because it's not treated as effectively as it could be. Right now if we paid a family -- if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they're taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that's $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 -- immediately the surgeon is reimbursed.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/16/surgeons-challenge-obamas-50k-amputation-claim-media-mum#ixzz1Ux04caJB

In this case, not only was he wrong on how doctors provide care, but he was way off on the price.

 

[Azrael]

http://www.hospitalmanagement.net/features/feature627/


The direct cost of an amputation associated with the diabetic foot is estimated to be between $30,000 and $60,000. The estimated cost for three years of subsequent care for individuals whose ulcer has healed without the need for amputation has been estimated to be between $16,000 and $27,000.

The corresponding cost for someone who eventually needs an amputation ranges from $43,000 to $63,000 – mainly due to the increased need for home care and social services.

 

[YankeeFan]

The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.

Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what’s right for the patient.

We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President’s remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.

http://www.facs.org/news/obama081209.html

 

[Azrael]

I know what their statement said. I know what the president said.

I also know that what a surgeon is reimbursed isn't what a leg amputation "costs."

It's one part of the cost.

And I'm shocked that doctors would try to put the brakes on health care reform.

 

[JonnyD]

I once interviewed the CEO of a smallish regional hospital, and he was adamant that the solution for rising health-care costs was to have hospitals be paid based on the results and not the treatments.

 

[CarltonBanks]

I do agree that employers providing health care is not very efficient or even logical. Why not have them provide car insurance as well? Seems odd. The system needs a big fix, but both sides will have to grow up and do something for the good of the American People for a change (instead of for the corporate entities that load them up with dollar bills). Neither side is interested in working with the other, however. And thats the biggest problem. Even here, why is it the typical righties on here can't discuss things without some lefties throwing temper tantrums and acting like petulant children? I think both myself and YF have been pretty rational in this thread...but it's the same old tired crap from the same old tired people. Oh well.

 

[HC]

I certainly don't trust the government to correct it. I have no desire to turn into Canada or Europe. I do agree that the Republicans cannot waste time celebrating when this gets deemed unconstitutional. They need to live up to all three of Mitch McConnell's points on ObamaCare: repeal, replace and reform. One out of three is not good.

As a Canadian, I have no desire to turn into the US. Whatever you've 'heard', I don't know a single Canadian that would trade our system for yours. In fact, if you want to trade anecdotal evidence, an actor I worked with was in Canada long enough to qualify for Canadian health care and got the surgery for debilitating back pain he'd been putting off for 10 years because it was going to cost him approximately $100,000 in the US. Here .... not a cent.

 

[Alma]

It addresses it by pointing out in a rather obvious way that the consumer already is bearing some of the cost.

The two parts of our economy where costs are rising far beyond the rate of inflation are education costs & health care costs. It's not a coincidence that the consumer of both is often insulated from the costs.

In these debates, we often hear about childhood diseases and cancer. Terrible diseases whose costs to care for are far beyond the means of an individual to pay.

But, a huge reason for increased costs in health care are based on lifestyle choices. Weight problems chief among them. Alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, promiscuous sex also play a part.

When the difference between "healthy" and "sick" is based on personal decisions, forcing the "healthy" to subsidize the care of the "sick" is not right.

When people are forced to deal with the costs of their decisions, costs will go down.

I keep seeing an ad for a medication for gout.

You know what the "cure" for gout is? Eat better.

But, now, people want and expect a pill to address the symptoms of their disease, rather than dealing with the underlying cause.

Until we address the underlying cause, costs will continue to spiral upwards.

And, at the end of the day, Government is going to have to ration health care. We all know it.

How are they going to do it? Who makes the decision? Who gets treated?

We're going to continue on this dead end path until the system is so broken, and we can't afford it. Then there's going to be hell to pay.

All of this is pretty much dead-on.

One reason it makes me absolutely ill to see Palin and other movement conservatives rip Michelle Obama at every turn for promoting healthy eating habits. WTF?

Well, Palin was ripped for "death panels," and in a roundabout way isn't that what you are talking about?

No?

 

[Alma]

I do agree that employers providing health care is not very efficient or even logical. Why not have them provide car insurance as well? Seems odd. The system needs a big fix, but both sides will have to grow up and do something for the good of the American People for a change (instead of for the corporate entities that load them up with dollar bills). Neither side is interested in working with the other, however. And thats the biggest problem. Even here, why is it the typical righties on here can't discuss things without some lefties throwing temper tantrums and acting like petulant children? I think both myself and YF have been pretty rational in this thread...but it's the same old tired crap from the same old tired people. Oh well.

I'm neither left nor right. So fire away. What's your solution?

 

[LanceyHoward]

The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.

Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what’s right for the patient.

We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President’s remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.

http://www.facs.org/news/obama081209.html

YankeeFan, you need to stop believing every press release the American College of Surgeons issues.

I will use me as an example. I had a problem with urine retention. U.S. doctors did an exporatory on my prostrate and that looked surprisingly good for a 50+ male. But the doctors could get the urine retention down so they did a TURP to open up my prostrate even though they were unsure the prostrate was a problem.

There were complications on my surgery. I am in worse shape, now have a screwed up prostrate, had follow-up surgery a month ago and am looking at a third operation and maybe prostrate removal.

I have subsequently moved to a foreign country and the urologists here can not believe I got two separate opinions recommending the original surgery in the U.S. And this country has substantially longer life expectances than the U.S.

 

[J Staley]

I do agree that employers providing health care is not very efficient or even logical. Why not have them provide car insurance as well? Seems odd. The system needs a big fix, but both sides will have to grow up and do something for the good of the American People for a change (instead of for the corporate entities that load them up with dollar bills). Neither side is interested in working with the other, however. And thats the biggest problem. Even here, why is it the typical righties on here can't discuss things without some lefties throwing temper tantrums and acting like petulant children? I think both myself and YF have been pretty rational in this thread...but it's the same old tired crap from the same old tired people. Oh well.

This boils down to whether you think health care is a right or a privilege. Personally, I think it's a right and would like to see a system much closer to universal health care. I know there are reasonable concerns about what that could to the availability and quality of health care, and would like to hear more adult discussion, but almost always run into two problems with many of the people against it ...

1) They are too quick to reference their irrational fear of communism that they are sure universal healthcare would bring, which makes them lose credibility to me.
2) They refuse to admit that other countries might have better ideas, or systems than we do.

 

[JR]

Health care is a right in most civilized countries.

And Canada does not have "socialized" medicine, despite what some of the right wing fear mongers in the US may think.

Doctors in Canada are small business owners-just like the US. Funny how that works.

Only difference is that instead of having a bunch of insurance companies to deal with, they have only one---their provincial government. And so they have more time to deal with patients than spending time negotiating with insurance companies.

Now, I know that there are going to be a bunch of people who will yammer on about "long waits for surgeons and procedures" in Canada, some of which is true. No one here--doctors, patients or politicians would every argue with that.

Fact is, our health care system is less costly, more efficient and more importantly, would never bankrupt any Canadian citizen because they couldn't afford a heart by-pass.

 

[The Big Ragu]

The sooner we can get back to the cost of health care rising at five times the cost of living, the better.

The cost of health care will continue to rise as long as there is unfettered demand. The health care industry will continue to grow to meet that demand. The abstract solution is easy:

Controlling overall expenditure costs means either decreasing pay for each unit of patient care or decreasing the amount of care provided. The first would require that tuition to train for patient care professions be made more affordable and the cost of supplies decrease; the second would require rationing of health care access

Thank you. The first option you gave, "decreasing pay for each unit of patient care," means price ceilings, which means shortages.

There is a third option, although maybe not something that can entirely control health-care cost inflation, and that is for people to take better care of themselves. We have great new therapies and treatments that have come to market in the last several decades, and they are able to keep people alive longer. Unfortunately, though, diabetes medications and cholesterol medications and placing stents in arteries is costly. And more and more Americans require those procedures, because we are unhealthier than ever. Decrease the demand for those things--by people stopping smoking, for example, or not being obese because they eat crappy, processed food--and health care costs cold come down quite a bit.

 

[Alma]

The sooner we can get back to the cost of health care rising at five times the cost of living, the better.

The cost of health care will continue to rise as long as there is unfettered demand. The health care industry will continue to grow to meet that demand. The abstract solution is easy:

Controlling overall expenditure costs means either decreasing pay for each unit of patient care or decreasing the amount of care provided. The first would require that tuition to train for patient care professions be made more affordable and the cost of supplies decrease; the second would require rationing of health care access

Thank you. The first option you gave, "decreasing pay for each unit of patient care," means price ceilings, which means shortages.

There is a third option, although maybe not something that can entirely control health-care cost inflation, and that is for people to take better care of themselves. We have great new therapies and treatments that have come to market in the last several decades, and they are able to keep people alive longer. Unfortunately, though, diabetes medications and cholesterol medications and placing stents in arteries is costly. And more and more Americans require those procedures, because we are unhealthier than ever. Decrease the demand for those things--by people stopping smoking, for example, or not being obese because they eat crappy, processed food--and health care costs cold come down quite a bit.

Three questions:

1. Who gets to decide what care is "good enough?"
2. How do they decide?
3. What are the penalties for the people who don't take good enough care of themselves?

Let's provide an admittedly ridiculous example.

You're in a hurry to get downtown. In your haste, you forget your gas tank is on empty. You run out in the bad part of town and what's worse, you're forced to walk to a station. Before you get there, you're mugged, and, in your pride, you resist giving the mugger your wallet. So he sticks you bad. You're doubly stupid for forgetting gas and not giving over your wallet. Should you be denied care?

Scenario No. 2: The above situation, only it's happening for the second time.

 

[JR]

If you want to eliminate crappy, processed food, we could look at shutting down every fast food restaurant in the continent and half the crap available in supermarkets. Don't think that's gonna happen

This issue goes way beyond "personal responsibility", a favourite of the corporate crowd who, still keep shoving fast food down the throats of North Americans

If we want people to change their eating habits, well, then maybe state/provincial/ and federal governments should start the initiatives and develop programmes to develop healthy eating. Not a big job.

 

[suburbia]

If you want to eliminate crappy, processed food, we could look at shutting down every fast food restaurant in the continent and half the crap available in supermarkets. Don't think that's gonna happen

This issue goes way beyond "personal responsibility", a favourite of the corporate crowd who, still keep shoving fast food down the throats of North Americans

If we want people to change their eating habits, well, then maybe state/provincial/ and federal governments should start the initiatives and develop programmes to develop healthy eating. Not a big job.

Michelle Obama is trying to do that, and the Sarah Palin types are skewering her for it. Plus the First Lady doesn't help herself either when she gets caught in photos eating high-calorie meals, as happened recently (and as the right was all-too-eager to point out).

 

[Dick Whitman]

No one "charges too much" for anything.

You are not going to change the law of supply-and-demand. It is as true as 2+2=4.

Gasoline, utilities, cable.

Next.

Who is making you buy gasoline?

Who is making you buy cable?

Monopoly utilities are heavily regulated to mirror a competitive situation.

A product is worth what people are willing to pay for it.

2+2=4

 

[Boom_70]

Health care is a right in most civilized countries.

And Canada does not have "socialized" medicine, despite what some of the right wing fear mongers in the US may think.

Doctors in Canada are small business owners-just like the US. Funny how that works.

Only difference is that instead of having a bunch of insurance companies to deal with, they have only one---their provincial government. And so they have more time to deal with patients than spending time negotiating with insurance companies.

Now, I know that there are going to be a bunch of people who will yammer on about "long waits for surgeons and procedures" in Canada, some of which is true. No one here--doctors, patients or politicians would every argue with that.

Fact is, our health care system is less costly, more efficient and more importantly, would never bankrupt any Canadian citizen because they couldn't afford a heart by-pass.

This story always tickles me. The one about Premier of Newfoundland coming to USA for open heart surgery :

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/02/01/nl-williams-heart-201.html

 

[YGBFKM]

I'd like to lose 20 pounds, and I am pissed my government won't help me do it. It has a responsibility to make sure I achieve my goals.